Appetite Check
An appetite check helps underwriters assess whether a risk or programme appears to fit the organisation’s underwriting appetite, guidelines and authority process before investing time in a fuller review.
Nairo can support this work by helping users review submission materials against uploaded appetite documents, class guides and internal reference materials.
Nairo does not make appetite decisions. It supports review by the underwriting team.
Scenario
A broker submits a risk that may sit outside standard appetite because of its class, territory, requested limits, loss history or other characteristics.
The underwriter needs an initial view of whether the risk should proceed to further review, be referred internally, require more information or be considered outside appetite.
Materials to prepare
Before starting, confirm the relevant materials are available in Nairo.
| Material | Where to use it in Nairo |
|---|---|
| Submission summary or key documents | Upload to a Project or use as selected context |
| Appetite guidelines and class guides | Store or select from the Library |
| Referral and authority rules | Apply through the team’s own process, and optionally reflect in Expert instructions or prompts |
| Prior examples, if appropriate | Upload as reference materials where relevant |
The quality of the check depends on the quality, relevance and currency of the materials available.
If appetite documents are outdated or incomplete, the output may be unreliable.
Suggested approach
1. Prepare the appetite materials
Confirm that current appetite documents, class guides and underwriting guidelines are available in the Library.
Teams should manage version control and approval of appetite materials through their own governance process.
Nairo can help users work with uploaded materials, but it does not decide which guideline version is authoritative.
2. Open an Underwriting Expert
Use an Underwriting Expert where available.
The Expert can be configured or selected to support a more consistent review pattern using available appetite materials and instructions.
Useful configuration may include:
- Underwriting stance appropriate to the team
- Common appetite questions
- Referral trigger checks
- Team rules or guardrails
- Selected Library materials
Expert outputs should be treated as draft analysis for human review.
3. Present the risk
Provide the relevant risk material, either by working inside a Project, uploading documents where supported or selecting relevant Library materials.
Example questions include:
- Does this risk appear to fit the available appetite materials?
- Which guideline sections appear relevant?
- What information is missing before an appetite view can be formed?
- Are there any points that may require referral?
- What factors suggest the risk should proceed to fuller review?
Where references are available, users should inspect the underlying materials before relying on the answer.
4. Human review checkpoint
Before using the output, the underwriter should review:
- Whether the relevant appetite materials were available
- Whether the output is supported by the cited or referenced materials
- Whether important information is missing
- Whether the guideline language is ambiguous or incomplete
- Whether authority limits or referral rules apply
- Whether the output needs correction before it is used
The final appetite view remains with the qualified underwriter and the organisation’s approval process.
5. Move to fuller review if needed
If the risk should be reviewed further, the team can continue in a Project or use other Nairo surfaces for more structured analysis.
A fuller review may include:
- Structured extraction of key risk information
- Review of missing information
- Comparison against policy wording or prior materials
- Preparation of referral notes or broker follow-up
- Internal review according to the team’s authority process
Using Insight Table for preparation
Insight Table can support appetite review by extracting comparable information from multiple documents.
For example, teams may use Insight Table to extract:
- Business activity
- Requested limits
- Territory
- Revenue
- Loss history
- Coverage requested
- Missing information
- Possible referral indicators mentioned in the documents
This can help underwriters prepare for appetite review, but the appetite assessment itself should be performed by a human underwriter using the organisation’s approved appetite materials and authority process.
Do not rely on Insight Table alone to determine whether a risk is in appetite unless the relevant appetite criteria have been explicitly included in the review process and validated by the team.
What this guide is not
This guide does not describe an automated accept or decline process.
It does not replace underwriting authority, actuarial sign-off, reinsurance consultation, referral committees or formal approval processes.
It does not guarantee that all relevant appetite rules have been considered.
It does not mean Insight Table can automatically screen risks against Library appetite guidelines unless that context has been explicitly included in the review process and validated by the team.
Nairo supports the appetite review process. The underwriting decision remains with the organisation.
Related areas
- Experts - specialist assistants with configured instructions
- Library - uploaded appetite and reference materials
- Projects - focused document workspaces
- Insight Table - extracting comparable information across multiple documents
- Underwriting Review - fuller underwriting review guide
Getting started
Start with one historical risk your team already reviewed.
Upload the relevant materials, run an appetite check and compare the output with how the underwriter previously assessed the case.
This helps identify whether the right materials are available, whether references are useful and where human judgment remains essential.